CIPA figures for April illustrate steadying of the digital camera market and continued mirrorless growth

DSLR sales continue to decline, but great news: the overall camera market seems to be stabilizing.

The latest figures released by the Camera and Imaging Products Association (CIPA) show that the total camera market remained mostly steady year-on-year for the month of April, and that mirrorless sales are growing against a decline in the number of DSLRs sold. CIPA's data demonstrates that its member companies produced almost the same number of cameras this April as they did in April 2016, but that they were worth fractionally more.

During the period from January to the end of April CIPA members actually produced more cameras than they did in the same period last year, and even though the difference was only 3-4% by volume and value, it is still very positive news.

The decline in the Japanese market rather drags the worldwide shipping figures down from 8.4% by value, when Japan is excluded, to just under 4% when looking at the whole world. Outside of Japan the market grew year-on-year for the period Jan-April by 3% by volume and 12% by value, indicating the cameras being shipped are higher in price than last year.

While the interchangeable lens camera market grew by 7.4% in volume and 4.5% in value for the month, the bulk of that growth came from the ‘non-reflex’ sector. CIPA includes mirrorless cameras, compact system cameras and rangefinder cameras in these figures, though without the membership of Leica or Hasselblad we can assume that most of the category is compact system and other mirrorless cameras that have interchangeable lenses – such as Fujifilm’s GFX.

Asia remains by far the largest market for these cameras and sold almost as many bodies as Japan, Europe and America combined.

This non-reflex category jumped in value by 37.5% in Japan but in the rest of the world that growth hit 80.5%. An area designated by CIPA as ‘Other’, that doesn’t include Asia, Europe, Japan or the Americas, saw mirrorless growth of 141% by volume and 136.5% by value - though the actual figures are relatively small. Asia remains by far the largest market for these cameras and sold almost as many bodies as Japan, Europe and America combined.

While only 89% of last April’s SLRs shipped this April, the worldwide market for these cameras is still just less than twice the size of the mirrorless segment, though in Japan the value of DSLR market was only 57% of what was managed last April – a really significant drop.

Comments

Mirrorless is the future. Cameras like the X-T2 and A9 are proving that any advantage DSLR had for auto-focusing is now gone. Nowadays these leagcy systems are being forced to compete head to head with 21st Centry solutions, and a younger generation photographers that don't want or need a bulk of these ancient systems.

mirrorless is the original lens to film plane paradigm[ now sensor plane ] reflex came decades later

the lens issue or smaller easier and yes sharper designs esp wide angle has existed for decades in the slr lens compared to rangefinder lens set of differences.

mirrorless cameras are in fact the evolution from rangefinder , with a simplified focusing methods off the sensor rather than a rf mechanism the size weight lens size and sharpness advantage are all there in modern mirrorless and this difference has existed for many many decades

Am I going crazy? ..... I remember looking at a very recent and very poorly written and unclear DPreview article with almost the same title, that had the opposite conclusion from CIPA data. I distinctly remember scratching my head and laughing at it.

Did any one else see it? If I wasn't hallucinating one can only imagine the crapstorm that resulted in these 2 articles.

If you are the editor that put your foot down and fixed this mess, you have my deepest respect.

best buys selections has been much more impressive and almost as good as camera stores. A few years ago you only saw nikon, canon a few sony and the samsung nx nobody bought in the samsung area at best buy. Now bestbuy has lenses from nikon, canon and sony. More sony models. I saw a few Olympus, 2 Fuji,and even a Panasonic models. A few years ago you only saw olympus, panasonic, fuji online or at a camera stores, now you can get them at bestbuy.

Honestly I don't understand that 1" and M4/3 mirrorless systems have not been sky-rocketing, because those systems currently form for 99.99% of mankind the optimal form factor: small (body & lenses), lightweight, decent photo quality (much much better than everything below 2/3') at just a small penalty compared to its oversize brothers (slightly reduced dynamic range). Maybe its the relative high price tag of mirrorless compared to entry dslrs

Some photographers enjoy taking pictures, not just reviewing pictures. They need an optical viewfinder and a camera body comfortable to hold. Even if stabilization often counterbalances the fact that you can't comfortably hold a mirrorless camera, it has no effect on user experience.

For justme, that may be true of units, but in value terms, the math is:12,861,000/36,572,000 = .35 or 35% in revenue terms. So units may matter for some kinds of predictions, but 35% of the revenue is nothing to be sneezed at, IMO.

Since Costco is only selling Canikon, their records would show 100% of sales going to DSLRs. That shows the mistake of making predictions based on a marketplace that predetermines the kind of product that will be sold. That's why i don't buy cameras from Costco anymore - no choice.

Costco is a strange place .... good produce and 10 products I can't get anywhere else .... but they make me walk a kilometer to get my milk at the back of the store, but when I enter I face a gauntlet of electronic devices. I gave up on that place a couple of years ago, especially as the stuff I really like kept going up in price.

Who would buy a camera for Costco. A camera is such a personal choice and what does Costco have, 2 models? And then there is the lenses you already have.

I would guess there are people who know EXACTLY what the want and Costco just happens to have it (but no lenses). Then there are the people who see Canon and dSLR and assume Costco know whats right for them.

I am a M4/3 chooser, as if it won't fit into my Pelican case, or small camera bag, I know I will never use it. M4/3 gives me the luxury of doing than and still having a flexible repertoire of lenses, but none for birding obviously.

I need a small camera beyond my with me Samsung S7. DSLRs for me were stay at home mostly due to the bulk and lenses. Micro 4:3rds might change that for me. Glass on APS-C and full frame not so much. So far the Panasonic G7 looks like my next camera on the go with my SD card external recorder.

I obviously wouldn't consider mirrorless for action photography . For walkabout on a weekend or on travel I prefer mirrorless.

Yes, if you want full frame, the Sony A7rII is not cheap and the lenses are not small. For walkabout and travel I am happy with crop sensor. The Fuji zooms are not small either and that's crop sensor (!). I definitely hear you. The way I intend to make it more comfortable for traveling is to use the Fuji with a prime lens and maybe one zoom but not a pro F2.8, but I am ok with that because it simplifies things down and I have used prime lenses with my Nikon Fm2n manual film body. I like how the body is small with a compact lens that you can just hold it by your waist as you walk around and just enjoy the holiday or weekend.

No difference to the past, people with film SLR had lighter systems like Contax T2 and premium compacts.

I find dSLRs bulky to be used casually in a train etc at the tourist site at the park etc.

Depends on which one you're talking about. One of my favorite walkabout kits is the Fuji X-E1 with Fuji's excellent 18-55/2.8-4 OIS. In spite of its faster speed, it's slightly smaller than a Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens (the Fuji measures 65 x 70.4mm while the Canon measures 69 x 75.2mm).

Yes, the lens certainly a bit smaller but not significantly. The body is significantly smaller. One does get f2.8 at the wider end but for many "tourists" they may be ok with a 3.5. I prefer the primes because they are significantly smaller as a main walkaround lens and then maybe a zoom for something a bit more focus in photography when I have the time away from others. The max load I would consider is a 1 zoom and 1 prime setup.

I just found inside a long distance train taking pictures of each others as one do on vacation and as trivial as what we are eating for lunch in this foreign place - a full frame dSLR and a wide zoom (3.5-4.5) with a 77mm lens cap was just too large. It's also not like I am printing posters need the fastest focus or highest ISO.

Also tempted by a X100 because the 23mm on that is quite a bit smaller than a individual 23mm with a enclosed system one also cannot take other lenses.

It's a year-over-year comparison, and it's a very common metric used in business. You compare how you are doing this month compared to the same month the year prior. And you do this every month. It gives you a very good gauge of how you are doing. Are you up or are you down? Are you doing better or are you doing worse? To say that these year-over-year comparisons mean nothing is very naive.

The more relevant figure is the 4-month cumulative total compared against the same period last year, which shows global shipment units for DSLR down by 9.0% and non-reflex up by 50.6%. So DSLR is still declining, but not quite as badly as the April number indicates.

Against this context, shipment value in yen is interesting: here DSLR is only down by 1.8%, and non-reflex up by 44.3%. So we can guess that mid- to high-end DSLRs are doing OK and it's the entry-class DSLRs that are in real trouble, while mirrorless is engaged in a race to the bottom. This may sound like good news for DSLRs, but it's not, as it means new addicts--er, customers are drying up.

If you check the Note 4 column of the cipa report, it includes the first 4 months of the year compared to the same period in 2016. I'm surprised at how quickly mirrorless products are invading DSLR market space. I don't doubt that Canon will quickly get a FF mirrorless into the marketplace.

It's easy to see mirrorless overtaking the casual, consumer segment of the market, which is probably the largest market segment. The question is the enthusiast/pro segment, where fast lenses are still relatively large and heavy regardless of body type. Sony is making a case for mirrorless with the a7/a9 series, but attach a fast zoom to it (like the popular 70-200 f/2.8), and there's not much difference in overall size and iq compared to Canikon.

My point is that size is only one aspect. You also have to remember pros travel and carry a lot of bodies. Bill Frakes shots the Kentucky Derby with 41 DSLRs, almost all of which were set up remotely, manually focused, and fired remotely. https://petapixel.com/2017/05/11/photographer-bill-frakes-used-35-cameras-shoot-kentucky-derby/That's how a lot of sports photography is done these days: remote cameras, no AF. I think that's an easy "in" for mirrorless bodies such as Sony's, since you can use existing Canon/Nikon lenses (adapted, manually focused), and these Sony mirrorless bodies are so cheap and shoot so fast (even a $500 A6000 shoots at 11fps). So performance/price ratio is really good. And being so small, it's a lot easier to travel with a couple dozen mirrorless bodies compared to a couple dozen DSLRs. And for bodies they are shooting by hand, pros can still stick to whatever they are using now. No need for total change-over.

T3, I can respect these Sony advantages, although I find it strange you don't list any disadvantages (there are some big ones with Sony). It will be interesting to see these numbers separated by segment, instead of lumped together with the consumer segment like this report.

Every camera has its pros and cons. DSLRs have their own. But just look at the performance reviews that are coming in for the A9. It's a serious contender. And this is only Sony's first attempt at a flagship body, too. For the performance/price ratio, it's really hard to beat the Sony, even if the specs and performance were only *as good* as the DSLR flagships. There are a lot of users in the pro segment that are very interested. I think we'll see a lot of A9's at the 2020 Olympics in Japan. I think that's what Sony is aiming for. By then, they'll have super telephotos. And once you have a super telephoto mounted on a monopod, it really doesn't matter how big your cameras is, because it's just going along for the ride, lol. https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpgBut what you want are the specs, speed, AF performance and AF coverage, which the A9 delivers in spades, for cheap.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZXFI-eIXk8

There's one thing we agree on - time will tell. And no, I don't put much weight on youtube and so-called professional reviews - don't get me wrong, specs and first-impressions have their place, but there's more to a camera and its system that online reviews don't cover.

"The question is the enthusiast/pro segment, where fast lenses are still relatively large and heavy regardless of body type."

Don't bundle enthusiasts with pros. Most enthusiasts (I count myself as one) have no need to stick with DSLRs. Pros are a different story.

I have seen lots of enthusiasts using mirrorless exclusively.

Pros still use DSLRs - some use mirrorless as well, some don't. For one example, those pros (and those enthusiasts) that are using Canon long focal length lenses will not be drawn over to Sony any time soon. No camera company can match Canon's long focal length lineup. Even Nikon looks pathetic in this category, with more expensive, heavier optics, that struggle to match the performance of their Canon counterparts.

@Woodman411 - "there's more to a camera and its system that online reviews don't cover."

Yes, people's blind emotions and attachment to the past! LOL. But keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have no such attachments to DSLRs. I remember when Canon EOS was still relatively new. Canon were introducing a lot of new technology and features. Nikon users would say things like "there's more to a camera and its system than fancy features and gizmos! You can't match the heritage of Nikon!" Blah blah blah. What they failed to realize was that a new generation of photographers was rising up through the ranks that didn't give a rats ass about Nikon heritage. They cared about what the cameras could do! Canon was delivering on that, with better features at better prices! Eventually, Canon caught and exceeded Nikon. Today, I see many similarities between Sony and Canon of the late 1980s/early 1990s. And I still see people with their heads in the sand, like Nikonians at the time.

AlexisH, you're right, pros have more demanding needs than enthusiasts. Besides the lack of long lenses, Sony cams have some severe limitations that were discovered by pros, not by online reviews, such as af stopped down past f/5.6 being un-usable (studio work), in addition to jpeg images with green cast skin tones, now green cast star colors with the star eater issues, and the overall durability concerns with IBIS and internal heat (time will tell on this).

@ T3: its great that Sony chases Canikon but please keep in mind that pros are able to track faces by themselves (a good photographer is able to do this). I doubt that they want to leave the decision which face should be in focus just to the camera, even it is made by Sony ;-)

Its not only the camera, its the lenses, the system, so I doubt that pros will quickly switch. But Sony is pushing hardly, and that's finally good news for all users. The old camera makers can't rest on their laurels anymore in 5-years-cycles...

@Picturenaut - LOL, I remember people saying the same against other technologies. When AF first came to SLRs, people said, "Pros can manually focus the lens themselves (a good photographer is able to do this)." This was most often heard amongst Nikon users because Nikon lagged in AF behind Canon. When IS first came to SLRs, people said, "Pros can handhold the camera steady themselves (a good photographer is able to do this)." Again, this was most often heard amongst Nikon users because Nikon lagged in IS/VR behind Canon. The reality is that pros do take advantage of any tech advancements that help them get the shot. Plus, it's not just face/eye AF. The A9 has better AF performance than a 1DXII or D5. Its low light performance beats the D5. And it massive focus coverage (693 AF points covering 93% of the frame) can track a subject out to the edges of the frame, which neither the 1DXII or D5 can do.SonyA9: https://goo.gl/lmk4dFCanon 1DII and Nikon D5: http://imgur.com/a/YPDkd

T3, you sound like a Sony salesman, I'm sure you don't mean to, but your over-reliance on internet wisdom combined with the fact the a9 has only been out less than a month is very telling. Nobody questions the expected durability and reliability of the 1d/d5, they are like industrial-strength cameras, and it is too early to tell how the a9 will hold up to the rigors of professional use. One forum pro user experienced two failed Sony bodies out of 5: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59569279

And yes, he also experienced the a7r2's not focusing past f5.6, causing him to eventually switch systems back to Canon. Point is, pro's have different (more demanding) requirements than the casual photographer.

@Woodman411- Not sure if you are aware of this, but the A9 has a totally different AF system from the A7 series. Also remember that the A9 is an introduction that is only 3 years, 8 months into the existence of Sony's FF MILC system. (The first A7 was introduced in Oct 2013). We're still in the early days for Sony. But the pace of progress they are making is pretty extraordinary. As for cameras being "industrial-strength", here's the A9's chassis, just four pieces of solid magnesium:https://goo.gl/wnlCtvAnd the rest of the camera is basically solid state. Heck, the whole camera is practically solid state. No mirror mechanism or phase detection module to break or mis-align.Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX are just larger. https://goo.gl/cBwMFmThe A9 is just smaller. People's perceptions are erroneously being effected by size. People like you look at how big a D5 or 1DX are, and you say, "Wow, industrial strength!"My point is, let's not bury our heads in the sand. Sony is a contender.

@@Woodman411 - Ultimately, I do think that cameras that are more solid-state, less mechanical, and have fewer parts, will be more reliable than the very mechanically complex DSLRs of today. There's less that can go wrong. Just the fact that you don't have to deal with focus calibration and micro-adjust issues on mirrorless cameras will be a big benefit. It just makes more sense to put the focus sensors at the focus plane (ie, on the image sensor) than in some totally different area, and use a series of sub-mirrors to focus the cameras. DSLR focus/metering/viewfinder systems are like complicated Rube-Goldberg contraptions. https://goo.gl/uYNEefhttps://goo.gl/uYNEef

T3, in principle, I agree that less complex and less parts, should be more reliable. However, we are talking about a very mature mechanical technology with dslrs, similar to the internal combustion engine, I'm exaggerating, but many times, electronics and circuit boards go bad before the mechanical engine does. That pro user I linked to, he had 2 out of 5 Sony a7 bodies go bad in a relatively short time frame, he didn't have issues like this with Canon. Like I mentioned before, the lower heat dissipation in Sony's smaller form factor is a concern, as is the built-in IBIS, since image-stabilization units are one of the major causes of lens repair. With enough time, these things will improve in reliability, but when that happens up to Canon standards, we will see a full-frame Canon mirrorless to compete against Sony.

"but many times, electronics and circuit boards go bad before the mechanical engine does."A DSLR has these same electronics a MILC has. But on top of that, it has a ton of other mechanical parts, too! So your argument holds no water. As for IBIS, that's far more mechanically simple than in-lens stabilization. But even with IS lenses, how often does in-lens IS fail? In all my years here at dpreview, I can't recall ever hearing of it. If it happens, it's extremely rare. If it really were a common issue, we'd hear about it wall-to-wall constantly on these forums, you can bet on that!

I think you're just another tech curmudgeon. I remember people like you saying the same things about AF, in-lens USM motors, in-lens IS. But the huge irony is that these arguments were being used against Canon, hahaha! It was Canon who was releasing these technologies, and curmudgeons like you who were arguing against Canon. Today, Sony is in the same position as Canon was, fending off tech paranoia.

First of all, people ignore the mechanical issues that exist in DSLRs, regardless of whether it comes from Canon or Nikon. Your idolatry of Canon ignores the fact that there are mechanical issues inherent in the DSLR design. I've been a long time Canon user. Still am. I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, 5D, and 60D. Canon is good, but they aren't faultless or flawless by any means. I've used plenty of other cameras, too, and I don't find them any less reliable than Canon. http://imgur.com/a/O9qURhttp://imgur.com/a/CSD4HStop being such a Canon fanboy. Expand your narrow, biased horizon! The funny thing is when Canon EOS was new, Nikon users used to argue incessantly that Canon EOS was unreliable! Haha. They used to say, "You want to bet on Canon reliability over Nikon? Really?" LOL. It's deja vu! It was all just insecure brand-biased FUD. I ended up switching from Nikon to Canon, but it wasn't due to any "reliability" arguments. It was because Canon was more innnovative with technology.

We're not talking about $1000 or even $2000 bodies. The a9 is $4500. This is the pro level, where technology must be coupled with robust reliability. Neither you or I know how it will fare, like I said, time will tell. I hope they do well, really, since more competition is better for everyone. But quoting youtube reviews and other shallow articles and not being balanced in your adulation for the a9 does not help anyone. dpreview absolutely loves Sony, but at least they have a cons list. You don't show a hint of balance here in a classic case of I-don't-have-the-camera-but-recommend-it-because-I'm-a-fanboy syndrome. I respect forum posters like Jim Kasson because at least he owns the a9, can posts the good with the bad, instead of the fanatical promotion you do for Sony. btw, are you even aware of the star-eater issue with Sony cams? Did you know about f/5.6 and longer focusing issues? You should - salesmen should know how to spin that to their advantage.

@Woodman411 - I have an A6000. I've traveled all over the world with it. I've dropped it, used it in monsoon rains in Sri Lanka, in high humidity in Singapore, in dusty conditions in India, etc. I don't baby it at all. And this is a $500 non-weathersealed mirrorless camera. The Sony A9 is built to a much higher level of strength and durability. Likewise, I can say the same about my Fuji X-E1, which I have also traveled extensively with. And the same goes for plenty of other cameras I've used. (And I've used plenty, from various brands.) The whole issue of reliability is just overblown. It's fear-mongers just trying to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Nikon users used the same failed strategy against Canon EOS back in the late 1980's/early 1990's. Now it's just being applied to Sony. It's the same song and dance, just in a different decade. That argument failed then, and it will fail again.

@@Woodman411 - You also have to remember that Sony iterates astoundingly fast. That's a huge advantage because it means they can implement improvements extremely fast. They seem to listen to feedback better than any camera company in the market right now. And they rapidly release firmware updates to address any issues that may arise. I don't think you realize what a significant thing that is. It's rapid evolution. And in the long run, rapid evolution wins out. No company is perfect. That includes Canon. There have been issues and problems with Canon cameras and products, just like with any company. But what makes a huge difference is how quickly a company can address an issue, and evolve the product. I think that's where Sony is really a serious threat. They simply evolve their products faster than anyone else. There are many times when I wished Canon would move as fast. In the early days of EOS, they did move fast. But these days, they move at a glacial pace.

T3, you're extrapolating personal experience at a consumer level and applying that to the pro level. I know it's hard for you to accept this, but pros will use and expose their cameras to so much more than what you're doing. It is not fear-mongering, it's reality. You haven't acknowledged Sung Park's 2 failed Sony bodies out of 5 for professional use. Think this is an isolated case? Search "sony camera turn power off and on".

Your continued reference to the past is premature, as is your wholesale adulation for the a9. It is too early to tell how Sony and Canon will fare (reminds me of Tesla and Toyota).

@Woodman411 - As I said, every camera company encounters problems with their cameras. Canon included. Sony has too. But look how quickly Sony iterates. Look how quickly they release firmware updates to remedy issues. And look how much they've accomplished in the less than 3 years and 8 months that the Sony FF system has been around. Faster evolution is going to put Sony at an advantage over slow-moving Canon and Nikon.

By the way, you can literally Google any problem scenario, and you'll find evidence of it on the internet. It's a fear-monger's favorite tool, LOL.

@ T3: sorry for the late reply. I prefer shooting, not posting ;-) But your reply to mine a month ago has some truth, I just remember another example. Originally, the phase AF technology was invented by German engineers from Leitz (Leica). But the management of Leitz decided to leave the patents to Minolta. They thought that pro's and advanced amateurs wouldn't need AF. So, Minolta hit the market wit the first phase AF SLR - and Leitz completely lost the pro market.

That said, face detection is nothing new. My ten years old Canon G7 had that feature already, smartphones have it. But I am sure that many photographers will still want to have full control over which face they want to be in focus.

In the long run we will see light field photography taking over, then you can select focus during post-production. Lytro simply came too early with a too immature technology, like so often in history.

Main story behind all this figures is that digital imaging is loosing interest, since biggest explosion when digital cameras came out and (almost) everybody could be diy fotographer/developer and photoshoper at home. Companies have to "invent" new and new gizmos, which really doesn't do anything revolutionary, so they can stay on the track aka sales figures. It's big business, but with a lot of money, comes alsi big risk and strategies. This was little bit different in analog days, when market was smaller in amateur, semi-pro and pro class.

I'm not sure if new entrants really care. Mirrorless are smaller, lighter, cheaper and do a good job. What's not to like? Try convincing a new entrant that they should pay more to get a flip up mirror!

That is not my point. People aren't really into photography have certainly heard of d-slrs but they have probably never heard of mirrorless. A lot of people think my a6300 is a compact camera and they are puzzled when I switch lenses.

With group activities that I know them personally and in New Zealand seeing the chinese tourists who visit here. But far the most popular cameras are dSLR. With the group I know just one 1 person with a mirrorless, the others are just your entry level dSLRs with kit lenses maybe a cheapo 70-300 etc. The tourists most were dSLRs by 90% many of the chinese had entry dSLRs, some Canon 5D and D800 with f2.8 lenses, grad filters etc maybe because they generally see dSLRs as more serious.

With the group that I know personally, a few have heard of mirrorless when they asked me about photog. I have suggested mirrorless for them if they just want holiday photos and of the kids and want to change lenses. I think price is a big issue for them. Why spend $800US or $1,500US for a body when you can get a entry dSLR with a lens for under $500US? 2 I know got preowned dSLRs, they could get it for $150US like a Nikon D3000/3200.

One reason is that most evf's in mirrorless cameras ae far superior to the very cheap, dark en small ovf's of entry level d-slrs.If you have one of these cheap cameras it is like looking through a very dark and long tunnel.

Yup, but those customers are price sensitive. And dSLRs do look pro. Not sure if normal people in Asia may be using more mirrorless. The ones that come to NZ might be more into landscapes etc .. I mean NZ is all about the outdoors, we don't really have big cities and big malls.

If you went to someone who knew nothing of the history of photography, and showed them two designs, one for a mirror system, with its complexity, and the other mirrorless, there would be no contest. Why have something so much more complicated? Now, I appreciate mechanical things, but the limitations of the mirror system place it firmly in the "yes, amazing, but things evolve" category.

I shoot mirrorless because size is important to me. If size wasn't so important to me I would choose a dslr for its view finder and battery life. But I don't get emotional, ideological and tearry eyed over tools...

I wonder if the trend in mirrorless simply reflects a larger available consumer pool, a large part of which are *already* invested in a particular SLR brand and not only first timers. For example, a loyal Nikon/Canon user could be very happy with their current SLR and have no plans to upgrade for many years. However, some will invest in a new mirrorless as a second system for specific needs. It's not unusual for mirrorless users to own both. Thus the newer technology company can take advantage of first time camera buyers as well as more experienced ones with established gear. A much larger potential market, and I think more than the opposite, ie a mirrorless user buying into SLR as a new secondary system.

That's basically what happened with me. I have DSLR gear. I didn't get rid of it. I added mirrorless gear because I wanted to take advantage of what newer technology could provide me (EVF features, lower size and weight, no mirror slap, etc.). I don't see myself ever buying a new DSLR. I just don't see the need for a new DSLR (because of size, weight, older technology, etc.). So, yes, I own both. But it's my DSLR that is now my "secondary system" (I don't use it much anymore) and mirrorless has become my "primary system" (my daily driver).

The other factor for manufacturers is that DSLR have a lot of mechanical complexity, a lot of parts, which ultimately makes them more costly to manufacture. This is especially an issue with declining sale volumes = declining economies of scale. Mirrorless camera have far fewer parts, ultimately making them less costly to produce than DSLRs.

I went from 35mm film to 4/3 to m4/3 (mirrorless). If I needed more IQ for large print landscapes, there would be no question to go direct to MF. I would need just one lens. The total cost would be less than switching entirely to FF.

It's not a matter of fashion, but after shooting mirrorless I couldn't go back to DSLRs, Using a EVF is so much easier than the Optical viewfinderAnd I wonder if people like you have ever try mirrorless for a reasonable amount of time.

Not just fashion.All things considered even if the mirrorless was the same size as the DSLR. I would choose current generation mirrorless because the focus is better.No Micro adjustments, the image surface is the focusing surface.

I feel sorry for anyone not buying into Fuji, Sony, or Canon (the latter for dSLR). Nikon will survive, so the sorry is to a lesser extent. Anyone else buying Pentax or any other brand is mostly dead in the water and don't know it.

Olympus seems to be doing better, but they really need to up their sensor tech. Why is there no word of a BSI U4/3 sensor yet that can close some of the gap between it and APSc?

We are offered trade offs.Nothing more nothing less than continually improved compromises.I honestly don't see no 'one product_ solutions to everything. M4/3 plays a role just like FF,1inch or the enternal compromise APSC. I chose the latter. We luckily still all get tho make that decision for ourselves

"Ricoh is shrinking its money-losing camera business to concentrate resources on commercial applications as smartphones continue to crowd out long-established names in photography."

Nikkei is not in the business of making false reports that may violate international securities laws, so their inside source must have been so airtight, that the info passed the lawyers and went public. Further confirmation is Ricoh's future plans, where Pentax was only named slightly and once in a multi-page document. However, instead of fixing themselves, they have an employee here and on numerous forums worldwide that attacks users, posts propaganda and lies, complains to administrators, and in the case here, he/she works with DPR's moderators who instruct people to start flamewars to they can remove peaceful, critical Pentax content.

As always, there are some arguments in these comments from people who are defending or plugging a type of camera they like (in this case, DSLRs v. so-called "mirrorless"). It's a silly way to look at things.

Technology is changing all the time and providing new possibilities. Removing the mirror box that film forced us to use (if we wanted to see through the lens) is one of the big ones. Some of the disadvantages of replacing an optical viewfinder with an electronic one (and the related consequences in terms of focus, lag time, whatever) are steadily being lost or even turned into advantages. Progress.

The changes in basic camera design, as seen from an intended use point of view, is moving the old niches around and creating new ones. This is nothing new. We are at a point of flux, as has happened a few times in photographic history. Argue away but I suggest it is better to embrace possibilities and hope that your preferred manufacturer(s) is going to keep in business!

CIPA data reflects why Canon and Nikon are the biggest companies in the camera market; while those mirrorless cameras companies are small.As an inverter, I will invest in the companies with high margin and high return. Why invest money in those low margin mirrorless cameras companies???

If you have money to invest, there are probably better places than investigating in camera companies right now! If you actually want to buy a camera to use, you will get better value for money if you buy from a company taking lower margins, obviously. I want to make a smart comment about your "inverter" typo but will leave it, despite the irony!

CIPA April data shows DSLR is still the mainstream, in terms of value and quantity.Value and quantity of Single Lens Reflex is double of Non-Reflex (which included what so-called mirrorless cameras).Both Canon and Nikon are right in their DSLR and mirrorless camera directions.

I'd like to see this experiment play out: I'd like Nikon to stay out of the mirrorless market, and maybe even totally kill off their mirrorless 1-series. For those who think that "Both Canon and Nikon are right in their DSLR and mirrorless camera directions", if Nikon survives well without mirrorless, then those who are dismissive of mirrorless will be vindicated! I, on the other hand, believe that mirrorless will increasingly be a bigger and bigger segment of the market, and those companies that aren't competing strongly in the mirrorless segment will suffer the consequences. So for this long-term experiment to work, we'll need Nikon to "stay the course" with their strategy. Here's hoping they do stay out of mirrorless! I'm hoping they just ignore mirrorless.

@Edmond Leung, I hope Nikon and Canon don't think like you do or they will be bankrupt at some point. Any reasonable person would expect Nikon and Canon to be able to continue selling large volumes of dslrs because they have spent years building up the user base, the pro support and the lens selections. Professionals would be crazy to move too quickly even if they actually like a mirrorless camera better. Eventually (and that is sooner more than later) the gap in lenses and pro support will be small enough and they will start moving in ever increasing numbers if Nikon and Canon don't have competitive cameras. But to believe that a report showing more dslrs being sold is evidence that Nikon and Canon are right is absurd.

@T3 that would be the death of Nikon... they might as well just throw in the white towel now if they plan to ignore mirrorless.

Nikon made a critical mistake. I can say this as an owner of two Nikon 1 cameras. They crippled the system with a small sensor size to protect the DSLR line. Vs building a new equally capable system that could bring people in as their needs changed.I moved from full sized DSLRs with Sony to the APS e-mount. And I did not give up image quality to do that. There is no such path for Nikon and Canon is also protecting the DSLR market in a way that makes the move from Canon DSLR to Sony mirrorless make more sense.Having watched how newcomers become leaders, like how Microsoft Word became #1 over WordPrefect there are two key things you must do. Embrace the new before it is popular and make the transition nearly painless.WordPefect hung on to DOS and DOS like usage trying to keep customers. Then at one point when WP made a major change, Microsoft made the Converter to Word 6.0 work better on legacy WP files than WP converter to their new 6.0 software. WP never recovered.

In 2011, CIPA figures showed us that 100% of ILCs shipped were DSLRs. In 2012 it was down to 80%In 2013 it was down to 80%In 2014 it was down to 76%In 2015 it was down to 74%In 2016 it was down to 73%In 2017 it is down to 64%

Something is happening. It makes you wonder what will happen six or seven years from now.

Canon seems to be pondering the question. Nikon is pretty much in a fog.

you are correct marty , further in the rest of the world like europe and japan mirrorless is gain traction faster than in the usa , which is a function of the relative sophistication of technological understanding in the avg user

simply put mirrorless is replacing the dslr steadily , and those who think it will come to nothing should remember how the decline played out

canon at least has a gme plan for apsc,... offering user a chance to stay in the canon fold,

nikon foolishly does not , thinking 1 inch sensors can replace , a large sensor for nikonians , or their diehard just want a mirrorless plaything but in all the years of the one system they have nothing compelling in size or useability .... nikons contempt for the market and their minds shows intensely ... its also priced unfairly and the lenses are stupid and slow taking zero advantage of the image circle of 1 inch eg. fuji 56mm 1.2 995.00 nikon one 32mm 1.2 895.00 nikon ff 50 mm 1.2 649.00

@cosinaphile: "further in the rest of the world like europe and japan mirrorless is gain traction faster than in the usa"

This year, in Europe, 71% of ILCs shipped were DSLRs, and 29% were mirrorless, so they aren't exactly on the mirrorless bandwagon either. :-) Even in Japan and Asia, more DSLRs were shipped this year than mirrorless.

i dont disagree with your figures , justme .... but is stand by my contention that mirrorless penetration in europe and asia is greater than usa for stated reason and also maybe a touch of conservativeness as well.

mirrorless came from nowhere a few years ago and by your reasoning almost 1 in three in europe is mirrorless ... thats a slow stampede .... i dare predict that 5 or 6 yrs from now mirrorless will account for 1\2 of european camera purchases it will be partly generational partly by attrition partly by the manufacturers push partly by people wanting smaller ilcs partly by those who switch because they grasp mirrorless advantages ...and those who just see the writing on the wall but mirrorless will dominate at least 80 20 a decade or so down the road

This sure looks like an East vs. West sort of thing. MILC cameras have captured almost half the ILC market in Asia, Japan, and Other Areas, while only achieving around a quarter of the ILC market in Europe and the Americas.

49 percent "other areas" ..... that is apparently the most non conservative , willing to take a chance with new tech areas of the globe ,,,, i hear the beaches there are quite beautiful..... i need to travel more ....sigh

In the first 4 months of 2017, i've seen some drastic increases in shipments to the Americas. Which to me indicates that the Americas are finally becoming more aware of what mirrorless has to offer. Although overall numbers compared to DSLRs are behind other regions. Trends are important.

a) sony stopped shipping DSLR's entirely really. (this happened in late 2013)b) Pentax moves even further into obscurity. c) canon starts shipping in mass far more MILC"s into Asia. (2015-16)d) new venders started up and started shipping (Fuji, Canon, Nikon, etc) and that takes a while for momentum on shipping products.

I don't think anyone rational ever assumed that once canon or nikon get into mirrorless that the ratio's wouldn't change and change quickly.

I think what people argued was that Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic would be the one changing the overall goalposts.

I would not be one to be surprised if Canon is now shipping around 10-20% of it's entire ILC's as mirrorless now.

I don't think they are at all. they know exactly what they are doing. Sooner or later the rebel line will go down to 1 camera, and the EF-M will be the stepping stone into EF cameras.

the only thing they seem waiting on is technology - DPAF sensors are not quite there yet. Almost. But not quite. DIGIC 7 in a DSLR just may do it. They are very actively R&D'ing stacked sensors and other technology that you could see being important to compete against cameras such as the A9 series (a ton of stacked sensor patents have been released by canon in the last 2-3 years)

Once they are, they will most likely give it a try with a mirrorless EF full frame or APS-C mount camera, and then slowly add in new models, and "die out" the DSLR's.

I doubt they'll do another mount, like dpreview suggested - that would be insanely stupid for the #1 market leader.

True. We can assume that some of the DSLR numbers for 2008-2011 were MILC cameras, since they weren't broken out into separate categories until 2012. So you are right. In 2011 less than 100% of that number were DSLRs, but probably more than 80% given the trend that followed for the next five years.

I think the trend is pretty well demonstrated by the year on year numbers. and the year to date on year to date numbers.

Specifically, April 2016 vs. April 2017, MILC up 67.8%, DSLR down 10.8%. Jan to April 2016 vs. Jan to April 2017, MILC up 50.6%, DSLR down 9%.

You can call these results insignificant, but I bet the planners at Nikon and Pentax are paying close attention. Over the past five years in a market that has dropped like a rock, the MILC segment is essentially flat. In relative terms, it is the best performing market segment.

of course Damien, you get the one major important fact wrong here. it's shipments from suppliers, not sales; and value is a little more nebulous.

those will always trend depending on new releases.

but as far as mirrorless versus DSLR; the tide was going to change once Canon decided to seriously ship mirrorless cameras. By all their quarterly reports, for the last 4-5 reports, they suggest a significant uptick in mirrorless sales and shipments.

@rrccad - "of course Damien, you get the one major important fact wrong here. it's shipments from suppliers, not sales; and value is a little more nebulous."

But that applies to both DSLRs and mirrorless. So it's not a factor in these stats since it applies to both. It's like a 100mm dash where two runners are running into the same headwind! It effects both of them. Or it's like the Kentucky Derby where all horses are racing in the rain. It effects the whole field.

"the tide was going to change once Canon decided to seriously ship mirrorless cameras."Yep, that'll have two effects: bolster mirrorless sales, and depress DSLR sales. Therefore, the trend of DSLRs declining and mirrorless rising will most likely be accelerated. And of course, Nikon will eventually jump in too, which will add fuel to the fire.

@rrccad - "disparate number of vendors"? I think you're grasping at straws.

I wonder how much longer people will be in denial of the rise of mirrorless? Get over it people. It's a natural evolution of cameras and technology. It doesn't mean the DSLR is going away. But change does happen.

not really it's basic common sense. if you have 9 vendors shipping and selling product A and 2 vendors shipping and selling product B, the patterns of A will be alot less random than B when most of the product lifecycle is shipped during it's initial period.

I think you're grasping at straws thinking that this sub thread is anything to do with denial.

I've always stated mirrorless will be the defacto - but only when canon and nikon deem it as such.

Even today, Sony has less than a 14% marketshare, Olympus has 5% and canon has 48%.

Mirrorless will be adopted but it won't be Sony, Olympus,et all leading the way in the marketplace doing so.

Canon's ILC marketshare is mainly thanks to the high volume of Rebel DSLRs they sell. Current 10 top sellers at Amazon in ILC are: #1. Canon Rebel T6, #2. Nikon D3400, #3. Canon Rebel T6, #4 Canon Rebel T5, #5. Sony A6000. #6. Canon Rebel T6, #7. Nikon D3400, #8. Nikon D3400, #9, Canon Rebel T6, #10. Canon Rebel T6. You can see how dependent Canon is on their Rebel DSLRs, with most of their ILC sales coming from the T6! http://imgur.com/a/kpZElBut in the MILC sales rankings, Canon is far, far behind. Their top selling MILC is the EOS M at #49, and the M5 is at #56. MILCs from other brands far outsell Canon. So at least on Amazon USA, Canon is definitely not "leading the way in the marketplace." https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_4_12556502011#1BTW, mirrorless is already being adopted. The market isn't waiting for Canon. Here Sony dominates.

Well, in Japan at least, Canon was #2 in mirrorless last year, according to the latest BCN rankings. Those are based on sales data from about 50% of Japanese retailers. Interestingly, Olympus took the #1 spot that Sony occupied the year before, pushing Sony down to #3.

Globally, I'm pretty sure that Sony is still #1 in mirrorless, but I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is #2. Olympus is not as strong outside Asia, Panasonic has lost market share in recent years, and Fuji's share is quite small (but reportedly growing).

@Revenant - Last year in Japan, Oly had 26.8% marketshare, Canon had 18.5% marketshare, Sony had 17.9% marketshare. Only 0.6% separates Canon and Sony in the Japanese market. That's not exactly a comfortable lead for Canon. Plus, I think the release of the Sony A9 will create a "halo" effect for Sony mirrorless cameras, helping the sale of their downstream mirrorless cameras this year.

Ultimately, what matters is profitability and a usership that is investing in the camera system. You can sell a ton of basic EOS M's to young Japanese females who will never buy anything more from the system, which may boost your "market share" numbers, but it's not necessarily good for long-term revenue. That's why companies like Fuji don't need high "market share" to do well. Fuji generally attracts more serious enthusiast photographers who are more likely to invest in the system long-term. That's why companies like Sony are concentrating on up-market cameras: more serious users willing to spend $.

oh give it up T3.. if it was another vendor selling to the masses you'd be explaining why it was such a good move to sell lower tiered items.

every camera they sell gives them a chance to selling a new model, a new lens, a new accessory that they didn't have before.

Marketshare is not a bad thing, and marketshare *is* necessary to increase your mount install base, and not to have upgrade exhaustion become greater than the number of people that do upgrade to a new camera.

and seriously... amazon.com is indicative of global marketshare selling habits? are you for real?

Mirrorless has had 4 months of very nice increases in sales (in the 40% plus arena) in 2017. After each month, the "deniers" state that its an anomaly and meaningless. Well the dslr owners may consider such information to be too short term for any conclusions, but i'm pretty certain that the number of articles criticizing Nikon shows that the mfr are not ignoring the mirrorless trend.

One criticism i've seen of mirrorless is these "compare pictures" posts which typically show a f1.4 85mm lens on a Sony FF camera compared to a DSLR - and the conclusion by that writer says: "See there is no value to a mirrorless camera". Well the thing is small mirrorless camera designs such as the Sony FF cameras, will allow one to put large or small lenses on. Its your option. An FE 85 F1.4 is going to weigh more than an A-mount 85 f2.8 or even an FE 85 f1.8.

It will be interesting when Canon and Nikon go FF with a mirrorless, whether they try to go with a small body or large body or both.

no doubt that a good optical VF is 1,000 times better, always. Still mirrorless cameras produce a small portion of a segment that's been replaced by the cell phones. Soon there won't me many gadgets oriented enthusiasts to feed the beast. Cell phones are already producing in full force both video and stills.There is a reason if Canon and Nikon didn't invest in the gadget: because here is no future

the body size determines the ergonomics. I guess if canon or nikon wants to do cramped horrid ergonomics such as the current mirrorless cameras, then they will be small. if they want to have a variety of haptic buttons, good controls and a good grip, then they will be larger, much like their current cameras. the M5 i currently have probably has the best viewfinder ergonomics out there from AF, to changing any setting without removing my eye from the viewfinder, and it's lightyears away from an XD level of ergonomics.

@Arastoo Vaziri - MILCs can easily be given bigger grips/bodies, and still end up smaller than comparable DSLRs. For example, Leica SL has a very large grip, as deep as a DSLR, and its length and height are very similar to a FF DSLR, but is still a lot slimmer than a DSLR.

The massive mid-section girth of DSLRs adds nothing to ergonomics. It's really mostly all about the grip. That's why Sony offers an extension for their grip (not to be confused with their battery grip), for those who want it:https://goo.gl/ypCgaWAnd of course, there's the battery grip:https://goo.gl/bWEYuLThat's the nice thing about mirrorless. It's more modular, more customizable. You can make them big or small. There's a lot more design flexibility. For example, since there's no mirror, the viewfinder can be placed anywhere. Heck, the Fuji GFX even has a removable VF, and you have the option of a tilt VF! https://goo.gl/plbKZMhttps://goo.gl/TvWnIg

As I mentioned, there's no problem adding height and width to MILCs. MILC bodies offer plenty of design flexibility. But I also think that a lot of people are stuck in the past, with regards to certain things. For example, most DSLRs all top-plate LCDs. But those were implemented in a time before huge rear LCDs and EVFs that can display a wealth of knowledge without you ever having to remove your eye from the viewfinder. Likewise, bazillions of physical buttons were the norm before the age of touchscreen LCDs. Today, all DSLRs have "Quick Control" screens that let you access everything you need. Obviously, key controls used regularly should still have a physical button, but that's not the case with *every* control! Even Canon touts their customizable Quick Control screen as a one-stop control interface. They produced this image to promote their 1DX:https://goo.gl/pdxg2VThis is where things are headed. Cameras don't need a bazillion physical buttons anymore. Modernize and simplify!

@Arastoo Vaziri - Actually, as a whole new generation of photographers comes into the market having grown up with the iPhone, modernized interfaces of mirrorless cameras will be a more comfortable fit for them. After all, these users grew up looking at electronic screens, so looking at an EVF is a natural thing for them. That's why many the older generation that didn't grow up with electronic screens balk at EVFs: it's not something they grew up with, not something they are used to. The opposite is true for the new generation of photographers. Dynamic EVFs are a natural for them, and OVFs are not. Touch screens are a natural for them. Slimmer portable devices are a natural for them. It's this next generation of users who will really determine which cameras will rise in popularity and which will fall in popularity. We are steadily approaching a tipping point. It's interesting to be at the cusp of such inflection points in history.

When I use mirrorless, it's because it's smaller and lighter. But when Nikon and Canon's FF mirrorless cameras arrive, they won't be that small and light, with a lens attached. Sure, there will be articles about guys discovering how good a prime lens is and their Leica-like experience. But in terms of size and weight, a full frame mirrorless outfit will be similar to a small SLR outfit.

So...Nikon and Canon will make a set of pancakes. These lenses will be jewels, small, light, sharp & cheap. But, to have the capabilty of a complete outfit, you will still need one or two big lenses.

And that brings you back to where we are now. If you want to put a big lens that you already own on a small body, you can get a Sony. If you're willing to give up interchangable lenses for compactness, you can get a Fuji. Enthusiasts may see this differently, but imagine if there was a camera system that appealed to all the phone and tablet users. Then you'd see sales numbers go up.

"But when Nikon and Canon's FF mirrorless cameras arrive, they won't be that small and light, with a lens attached."

We'll see. Canon has been able to make their APS-C mirrorless lenses noticeably smaller than their APS-C DSLR lens equivalents. I think they'll deliver something similar with their FF mirrorless, compared to their FF DSLR. I think the shorter flange distance will give lens designers a lot more design flexibility, far more than they've had with the long register distance of DSLR lenses.

@T3: " Canon has been able to make their APS-C mirrorless lenses noticeably smaller than their APS-C DSLR lens equivalents. I think they'll deliver something similar with their FF mirrorless, compared to their FF DSLR. "

wrong, you can't cheat physics. why should they do something that sony can't do? If you want the high performance and fast lenses with a fast AF they will be at a certain size. period. the sony GM lenses are bigger than the sigma arts. that is for FF, and for aps-c the physic is the same. look how huge the 1.2 olympus lenses are.

Zeiss says they can make mirrorless lenses smaller while delivering the same IQ as their DSLR equivalents. Or they can make them the same size, but with higher IQ. Ultimately, the shorter flange distance gives lens designers more flexibility.

"Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data."

ultimately for a full frame kit of normal lenses that actually people use, and not esoteric primes your kit will end up weighing in around the same for mirrorless or not, if you match aperture. you're not going to get a significant difference in weight between a 24-70, 70-200 2.8 .. pretty normal kit between a 6D and a mirrorless equivalent.

Not to mention the mirrorless equivalent will be around the same size to have the ergonomics.

And even if I were to replace the A7II with the much higher spec A9 (only 74g more), the Sony mirrorless setup still maintains a big size and weight advantage over the D750.

Also, consider this: what can you do to get a D750 (840g) down to the size and weight of an A7II + Sony 35/2.8 (719g total)? You can't! A FF D750 body alone is larger and heavier than an a Sony FF body + lens! Same with Canon 6D (770g).http://camerasize.com/compact/#567,579.394,380,ga,f

But keep in mind that at the high pro level, most pros may not care that much about weight. They'll go for the specs (20fps, massive focus point frame coverage, focus tracking, face detection tracking, etc). However, in consumer segment, I think size and weight will be a much bigger draw. Remember, these people aren't being paid to carry around camera gear like pros are. They want ILCs (or electronic devices in general!) that are light, compact, portable, that they can enjoy without it feeling like a burden or inconvenience to carry.

@T3, your math is off. 485g is not "almost a kilogram", it's just over a pound, or just under HALF a kilogram.

Besides, if we substitute a non-VR Nikkor 24-70 lens to match Sony (900g instead of 1070), and insert an FM2 body (570g instead of 840) and 70-200FL f2.8 lens (1425g with foot, 1354 without), we've more than completely erased the Sony weight advantage; it's now 100g advantage Nikon. Even with a D750, which is ergonomically vastly superior to the Sony bodies, it's only about a 170g disadvantage for Nikon. All that remains is for Nikon to produce a digital body that's no more than 100g heavier than an FM2. Shouldn't be too hard.

Weight and size and ergonomics, in short, are non issues at least as far as FX is concerned. This is a DX problem, not an FX one. There's also a video issue in FX and DX. So, Nikon needs a solution in DX that includes lenses and mirrorless.....and they need better on-chip autofocus, for which they already have the patents.

@rrccad - I'm keeping it comparable. The Nikon lens is stabilized (via in-lens stabilization). The Sony lens is stabilized (via in-body stabilization). Sure, you could switch to the non-stabilized Nikon lens, but then you lose stabilization! And the Nikon combo still ends up being larger and heavier (1740g vs 1511).

Ultimately, a few years from now, people who like bigger heavier camera gear, and mechanical cameras, they'll choose DSLRs. For those who want lighter, more compact, quieter, solid-state gear, they'll choose mirrorless. But with the performance gains that mirrorless is already achieving, like with the A9, I think an increasingly smaller portion of the population will choose DSLRs. The Sony A9 is already exceeding the performance of the Nikon D5:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

So extremely mature DSLR tech is already being matched and exceed by relatively young-state mirrorless. Just imagine what the A9II will bring.

@wombat661 - "blazing speed with flash" is definitely an outlier usage. No one is shooting 20fps with flash. Besides, i know of no shutter lag with flash. I have not experienced any such lag with using flash on my Sony bodies. If there is, obviously it's something they need to address. But is that a hallmark of mirrorless? LOL, of course not!

I recommend you watch this video pitting the Sony A9 with the Nikon D5:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4Keep in mind that the A9 is already exceeding the performance of the D5. My point is that size is just one factor. Overall performance will be the major draw. And price. Not bad for Sony's first attempt at a mirrorlesss flagship! Just imagine 18-20 months from now when Sony rolls out an A9 II, and we see the first-gen A9 drop below well $4,000!

T3: Shutter lag is different than 20fps. To capture the moment, you need instant response soon as you hit the shutter button. From what I read, you get shutter lag using the Sony flash in TTL mode. There is significant shutter lag with their wireless set-up. Some say there is no shutter lag with aftermarket flash. Is not clear what works and what does not.Hate to spend $400 on a Sony flash and get that kind of shutter lag.

@wombat661 - Like I said, I haven't experienced this. Do you seriously think this is a permanent and prevalent issue? I don't. If it exists, I'm sure it will be remedied. Every camera or system has its issues and challenges at some point or another. DSLRs have focus-calibration issues, which is why most DSLRs now have micro-adjust. Problems arise, them they get remedied. Should we have all stopped using DSLRs when these back-focus/front-focus lens calibrations first started appearing? LOL. The irony is that if mirrorless had always been around, and DSLRs had come around afterwards, everyone would be jumping on the DSLR focus-calibration issue, saying, "OMG, look how terrible DSLRs are!" Hahaha. We'd also probably be criticizing DSLRs for lack of real-time exposure preview, or lack of face/eye AF in the viewfinder, or the noise of the mirror, or how all the focus points are clumped in the center, their size and weight, etc, too :)

T3: If there is shutter lag with TTL flash, that would be a significant issue, not just a minor annoyance. That is something Sony should have fixed before release.I find that for nice pictures of people, you need flash photography to brighten up the face and get the eye catchlight. So flash, regardless whether you have DSLR or mirrorless, you have to do a preview after taking the picture anyway. Over time with DSLR, I get a feel for what setting to use to get the exposure right. Because you don't get instant exposure feedback on the viewfinder, it forces you to learn proper exposure. So even with flash, I don't have to take endless trial pictures to get the flash exposure right the first time. YMMVBTW, if you add camera with a proper flash, the outfit is pretty big anyway. I often have other people ask to take pictures for them because I look "professional". Anyway, +/-14% in weight will be in the noise.

"Over time with DSLR, I get a feel for what setting to use to get the exposure right."

Sure, it's great to have a "feel" for it, but you speak as someone who has grown up with OVFs, so you accept it. That's not necessarily the case with a new generation of photographers who are used to seeing the exposure on the screen. It's like using audio cassette tape, and saying that you have a "feel" for how long you need to fast forward through the tape to get to the next song. People who grew up in the digital audio age would just way, "It's better to be able to skip to the next track instantly!"

With mirrorless, it's about a LOT of advantages. Size, weight, visual exposure feedback in the VF, histogram in the VF, having face/eye AF in the VF, focus mag/focus peaking, etc. For example, I love using EVF in black-and-white mode: it helps with composition, to see the world more abstractly as shapes, lines, tones, textures without distraction from colors. Can't do that with OVF!

I've owned 40-50 cameras through the years. All manufacturers and most formats. I've learned when purchasing a digital camera to place the most value on image quality out of the camera. It doesn't matter to me much anymore what combination of buttons and menus I had to use to prepare for the shot. Sure, certain body specifications are still important, e.g. weather sealing, but at the end of the day when I add a photo to my library, I want one that pleases me to see and share. Technology will come and go, and forever make changes to the equipment we use, but I just love making the images.

I have come to the opposite conclusion: differences in sensor quality have become irrelevant, area being the only significant differentiator, while shooting raw files removes a slew of software gimmicks from consideration.

If you are a photo enthusiast, shooting mostly for yourself, you will probably care more about image quality. If you are a pro, or a wannabe pro, all you care about most of the time is being able to provide images that people will buy. There is a bottom limit in image quality, and anything else is excess

"DSLR or MILC" has absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Ergonomics.... yes. Type of viewfinder.... yes. Size and weight..... yes. But the image quality is determined by the sensor and the lens, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a mirror that flops up and down.

Compare APSC cameras to APSC cameras, and compare full frame cameras to full frame cameras. And make sure they have very similar lenses on them. I defy anyone to find an image quality difference that was caused by the flange distance or the mirror.

well i think that the accuracy of reading focus off the sensor as opposed to the dslr method of bouncing off a mirror to an off sensor modue means more keepers, for focus at least ,with mirrorless and back focus front focus issues with different lenses and "tuning the dslr " which is a non issue for mirrorless

but i think dslr still has a slight focus speed advantage over most mirrorless

so one has greater accuracy one greater speed

these will lead to different amounts of correctly focused images for noise and resolution mirrorless vs dslr it has nothing to do with it

equal sensors in either and similar quality lenses in ei will be the same

Sorry, I was really trying to speak to the long term evolution of picture making. We've seen film replace plates and sensors replce film as the mainstream medium. I suppose one day we'll all pop on a 2 billion giga picel contact lens that we control with our thoughts. Whatever the mechanism for producing the image, I have learned over the years to make my first judgement of a camera by its out-of-device image quality. Is the color output what I'm looking for? How about grayscale? Kind of like walking into an appliance store and seeing all of the TVs showing the same movie. Some will grab your interest right away. That's all. Fo ME, as long as I have the image "look" that i want, I can live with variations in features, formats, manufacturers, etc. Each camera has taught me new things and I've enjoyed them all. - Randy

I was using smartphone cameras till a few months back. Deeply dissatisfied with the quality of the pictures, bought an RX100M3 after meticulous research.

The difference was night and day, especially after processing RAW files. My old love of photography, dormant for so many years was rekindled. Soon, the 1 inch sensor and the limited focal length was no longer enough.

When it came time to buy an ILC, the thought of buying a DSLR with its huge body, OVF, limited live view, and severely crippled video was anathema to everything I knew.

Sony made incredible mirrorless APSC cameras that were as good as any DSLR for AF, yet fulfilled every need I had as an enthusiast, for video and ease of use. Even more importantly, they had full sales and service support in my country. Which none of the other mirrorless competition had. It was a no brainer.

Using the kit lens gave me no better image quality than the RX100. Upgrading the lens gave me the shallow DOF and low light performance I craved, exploiting the incredible sensor of the A6300 to capture photos and remarkable 4K video. There is no competitor that can do this combination of great photo quality in low light, great AF, 4K video and 120fps 1080p video, all for less than $1000.

I am sure I am not a unique case, and photography enthusiasts of the future, coming from phone cameras are more likely to follow my path, than choose archaic DSLRs.

All good and agree with everything you said, but still frustrated with not including touch focus on many of their cameras. Just absolutely bizarre, especially with the fantastic video tech...but no way to pull focus? Jeez.

april? how about next year? the mirrorless precence is pretty insignificant and on it's way out, the trend is..... cell phones are already replacing the DSLR segment for fun , and Nikon is already finding ways to resist few more weeks and then... , and nobody cares about investing. DSLR for gadgets obsessed and enthusiasts is over, people.

SLTs are usually included in the DSLR category, and Sony has always marketed them as a kind of DSLR, since they replaced the DSLRs in their line-up, and were intended as direct competitors to Canon's and Nikon's DSLRs.

I took a vacation trip to Taiwan a couple weeks ago, traveling all around the country. Mirrorless usage was very high there compared to DSLRs. I think Asian consumers are definitely more open to newer technology such as mirrorless ILC. They are much quicker to embrace these things. Plus, I think they are much less interested in carrying larger, bulky camera. They seem to value smaller and lighter electronics more than, say, North Americans do. Besides, feature wise, mirrorless cameras emulate smartphone cameras far better than DSLRs can, because all mirrorless cameras offer face detection AF, large AF coverage, real-time exposure preview, etc, all though the EVF, without a mirror in the way. So mirrorless is a much more natural and comfortable progression for consumers who grew up accustomed to the features of a smartphone camera.

Mirrorless are as heavy , as bulky, as DSLRs are and communicate with your smartphone, through the same applications DSLRs do .(By the way, i live where many Asians -among others- spend their vocations so i can see what they carry and it doesn't look neither smaller nor lighter)

@the decent exposure - I'm a long time DSLR user. But I've also been using various mirrorless systems for a few years now. They are all smaller and lighter than my DSLR. No question about it. That's been my personal experience:

Not true. I have an X-E1 with a Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 OSS (third camera from the top in 1st photo I posted). For its aperture size (f/2.8-4), it's amazingly small. (And very sharp, too.) It's barely larger than a Canon 18-55/4-5.6 IS EF-S, which is obviously a much slower lens:

@virtualreality - A lot of that weight comes from the excellent build quality of Fuji lenses! They are built to a very high level of quality. They feel quality.

Yes, the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 weighs 100g more than the Canon 18-55/4-5.6. But the build quality is totally different. The Canon is an all-plastic lens. Even the lens mount is plastic. Fuji's materials are much higher quality, more metal. And it's also a faster lens. And it has an aperture ring, too. All of these things account for the 100g greater weight of the Fuji. Definitely worth it! But it's still remarkably small!

@T3: you are wrong. compare the good lenses, not some crappy ones. the 56 mm 1.2 fuji or the 42,5 mm Panaleica are not smaller and lighter than the dslr 85 mm 1.8. compare sony alpha FF with sony or other DSLR, the camera housing might be smaller an ligther, but not the whole system with a camera and the lense. the mirror does not make a huge difference. add a battery grip to get the same performance than a DSLR and you are on the same level for the weight too. you only win if you are ok with slower lenses, like the FE 35 mm 2.8 from sony, which is a great lense. it is even smaller than the 23 mm f2 from fuji. and even better.

and I have a personal first hand experience with most of the camera vendors for many many yeara.

I don't know why people continue to claim there's no size/weight difference. When Canon gets their FF mirrorless system, you'll be free to compare the sizes and weights to their FF DSLR system. We can already do that with Canon's APS-C mirrorless gear vs their APS-C DSLR gear. It's already a big difference when comparing their APS-C systems.

I love using mirrorless because it's smaller, lighter, less obvious, especially when traveling!

@T3 you still compare cameras without lenses, that won't workhttp://camerasize.com/compact/#579.516,567.330,ha,twhere is the benefits of mirrorless? ups, gone. and when canon comes with mirrorless FF, it won't be different. the lense is the limiting factor. and to be honest, with a certains lense scize, you don't want that small housing. so in some cases the mirrorless are smaller, but mre or less, because ther eis no similar lense for a dslr, like the fe 35 mm 2,8

I do this too for travelling, but know that I have a smaller aperture and get the benefit due to that part and nor from the missing mirror. the missing mirror gives me the benefit of the EVF but that is a different story.I travell with the f2 line from fuji, great setup, but you can't compare it with a dslr, cause there is nothing to compare.

@the decent exposure - In your example, the mirrorless still wins out in size, most definitely! You really need to hold both these cameras in your hand, even with lens mounted, to see that the Sony setup is absolutely smaller! As for weight, the Sony is still 80g lighter, and it has images stabilization. Let's do this comparison again when Nikon adds VR to their lens.

I just don't think people have enough first-hand experience with these things. In the real world, in your own hands, there's no question that mirrorless setups are generally smaller.

The jury met and decided T3 easily won this argument! Just walk into a shop, spend some time looking at all the m4/3 lenses (and Leica lenses if they have them), then walk over and look at all the Fuji lenses (clearly bigger), then look at the SLR lenses (huge!).

@NicoPPC - That one lens really doesn't help much when you consider that a naked Canon 6D body alone (770g) is already larger and heavier than a Sony A7 II + Sony 35/2.8 lens combined (599g + 120g = 719). Even with the Sony 35/2.8 mounted, an A7-series body still presents a smaller visual and physical footprint than a 6D body alone.

@NicoPPC - "Sure, DSLR are a little bigger und about 100g-200g heavier due to the mirror box."No, this is a big misconception. People think a DSLR is big just because of the mirror box. Reality is that there are a lot of other components inside a DSLR that take up a lot of space, that don't exist in a MILC. For example, the mirror mechanism of a DSLR includes a lot of parts hidden inside the body that take up as much space as the mirror itself: https://goo.gl/hLKIM8https://goo.gl/6BQVttThen there are the separate phase detection AF module, separate metering module, separate AF point display system, separate viewfinder info display module, etc, including all the wiring and mounting hardware for all these components. In a mirrorless camera, all these systems are integrated into the image sensor and EVF screen, cutting down greatly on space, wiring, mounting hardware, etc.https://goo.gl/5rIh6nIt's not just about the mirror box! It's all the other crap a DSLR requires!

@NicoPPC - "Actually, they could probably designed smaller lens for DSLR as well."Probably not without IQ compromises. DSLR lenses have actually been getting bigger. Compare the Canon 16-35/2.8L II (640g) with the latest Canon 16-35/2.8L III (790g). https://goo.gl/xQitzN

DSLR lenses require additional optics because of the large lens register distance required for mirror clearance:https://goo.gl/Xskf8D

Meanwhile, Zeiss has confirmed that the shorter lens register distance of mirrorless cameras allows them to design lenses that are smaller, and/or sharper for the same lens size, compared to DSLR lenses:

"Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data."

I dunno... lots of extreme views on here, but I think, as per usual the reality will be somewhere in the middle. Mirrorless is relatively newcomer to the market (new is relative, I mean new in the sense that the offerings actually now work as good as a DSLR in some respects) So, just like DSLR sales stabilized after Cell Phone cams took a chunk of the market, I think we will see DSLR sales stabilize again after mirrorless becomes just another option. Mirrorless will probably eat up a chunk of the advanced hobbiest market that went to superzoom or high end P&S market previously, which is giving ground to cell phones & DSLR. Picture an overloaded subway train, and a bunch of people just got off at Yankee Stadium for a game, but a bunch more get in at the next stop where a Bruno Mars concert just let out and the car fills up again. Heh... There is a finite amount of consumers, and the market will self correct to settle into available spaces. My ,02 cents, with inflation of course.

The "reality somewhere in the middle" idea is promoted by people who can't support their views with facts. The idea of the reality in the middle is too sow the seeds of doubt into a discussion that is moving in an unfavorable direction.

I don't know what can reasonably be inferred from the evidence offered in this particular topic but, there is no evidence to support the "reality is usually somewhere in the middle" silliness.

@pinnacle And the "reality *must not* be somewhere in the middle" idea is promoted by people who cannot abide the idea that reality is somewhat more complex than "one system to rule them all" and who desperately *need* their chosen system to be that one.

In other words - the intolerant, insecure ones.

Please note that the above paragraph mentions neither ML nor DSLR - it is equally applicable to fanbois of either.

actually the reverse is true mirrorless is the original lens to film plane paradigm[ now sensor plane ] reflex came decades later

the lens issue or smaller easier and yes sharper designs esp wide angle has existed for decades in the slr lens compared to rangefinder lens set of differences.

mirrorless cameras are in fact the evolution from rangefinder , with a simplified focusing methods off the sensor rather than a rf mechanism the size weight lens size and sharpness advantage are all there in modern mirrorless and this difference has existed for many many decades

These days, with very tight, electronic inventory management and analytics in the retail space, shipments are very tightly correlated with sales. This is the 21st century we live in. Big data really helps retailers keep a tight lid on their inventory. Gone are the days when stores had large quantities of unsold cameras just collecting dust on store shelves.

@rrccad - You're very prejudicial against mirrorless. Low-end DSLRs are in perpetual state of "fire sales".

One way low-end DSLRs are "fire-saled" is that they are packaged in "bundles" with tons of add-ons to make them more attractive. Look at the top-selling packages on Amazon: http://imgur.com/a/AmM7yYou can see Rebel T6's are in bundles that include everything but the kitchen sink, lol! Would they sell as well without those huge bundles? Probably not. Meanwhile, a Sony A6000 at $598 (a higher price than any of the other "firesale" DSLR packages in the top ten listing), without a bundled package, is #5. So the irony of your statement is that it's really DSLRs that do the "firesale" thing far more than mirrorless. DSLRs are in a constant state of "firesale."

"Canon M doesn't get much love on DPR, but I understand that they sell quite well in Asia."

The question is, how many of those EOS M users end up being long-term users who are building a system? In other words, how many of those Asian buyers convert to being highly profitable system supporters? It sounds like those Asian buyers are mostly young Japanese females who buy the EOS M as a one-off purchase. The quantities may be high, but the conversion rate to repeat-buying camera system supporter is probably low compared to, say, someone buying a Sony A7 or A6000.

that really explains why Sony seems to be more active in China, it's a fresh, growing market where most doesn't have long relationship with the old brands, it's pretty clear that they have a lot more respect and admiration from consumers there than in US/EU/JP where the bias to Canikon is too big

and we can see how they take their feedback more in consideration or else e-mount cameras would look just as boring as all dslrs by now

Waiting for Pentax fans to swoop in and use this to claim that they are the #1 dSLR company in the universe.

They already tried to claim that Pentax was almost in second place behind Nikon. I don't know, if they aren't closed sooner, maybe in 20 years, when they are still peddling slrs for the hipsters of the future, they can finally be #1 at something. And maybe then they'll add 4k video and add another lens or two from the current roadmap.

Now KVM2 has outed how it works in the Pentax forum: the mods have privately and slyly publically given tips to the Pentax zealots on how to spam threads with abuse if the thread is critical so it gets locked. The fact is, the majority of all abuse comes from the Pentax fans who are in cahoots with the mods that are constantly pruning the forum of critical posts of Pentax, no matter how well articulated. It's gotten so bad, that other forums and Imgur has dozens of threads screencapped to show how DPR is handling this. There's another site that discusses (with a profile photo) the Ricoh employee here that hurls abuse here and instantly hits the report button to get threads deleted/locked.

So thanks for confirming, KVM2, that you are part of this crew that works with the mods to get critical threads locked and deleted. This is how DPR helps Pentax cover up the issues it has.

"Pentax zealots", "in cahoots", your choice of words doesn't exactly instil confidence in your objectivity. Neither does the fact that you post comments like this again and again, even in threads about other brands than Pentax.

I would just let the whole Pentax thing go honestly. It doesn't even matter at this point anyway. Just sit back and let the economics catch up with this brand. Make sure you don't have a lot of money tied up in them. Because, quite frankly, buying into their system at this point is like buying a big ticket item from Sears/K-Mart.

I'm well aware that this thread isn't about any specific brand, and that Ricoh is one of the companies supporting CIPA. But your Pentax posts have appeared in many other threads that specifically are about other brands, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I think there is too much buzz about mirror vs mirrorless. It's only a detail in the design of digital ILCs. Nothing comparable to the transition from film cameras to digital cameras that changed the complete workflow and brought fundamental new features, like immediate image review.

Yes, mirrorless can be made smaller. The difference reduces though when including lenses into the equation. Also DSLRs exhibit significant differences in size and weight -- comparing e.g. an EOS Rebel or D3400 with D500 or even D5.

The real questions are if people are willing to carry around anything more than a smartphone with ever better photo capabilities and how ILCs will address the new demand for immediate image sharing.

The decline of the Japanese market sounds alarming for Japanese manufacturers -- I believe that innovative strong industries rely on strong home markets.

@ I think there is too much buzz about mirror vs mirrorless. It's only a detail in the design of digital ILCs.

Agreed; people make much more out of this than is warranted — all the camera manufacturers have been making what are fundamentally mirrorless digital cameras since the late 1990s.

It's the interchangeable-lens part that adds a wrinkle, because to do it right typically means a new lens mount. So you do have to be ready, willing, and able to build up a new lens lineup, and that takes time. So there is a significant investment, and therefore some risk, involved.

"All major camera manufacturers are Japanese." That's the point. The Japanese market is so strong that CIPA counts this country individually -- besides the continents Asia, Americas and Europe. Naturally the manufacturers are Japanese. This can change if the Japanese market continues to struggle. Simply because the manufacturers struggle to innovate if their home market does not stimulate them anymore.

The Japan home market share of MILC shipments declines as the "Rest of Asia" market increases. This likely reflects the growth of the MILC market in China and India, from 35.3% to 49.1%. Almost 63% of MILC shipments went to Asia + Japan in 2017.

I remember hauling all my heavy DSLR Gear with me for walks, family outings, and vacations... Then one day, as I got older, I started to realize that my camera wasn't coming with me anymore and the hobby I once enjoyed so much, was fading out of my life... All of this was because of the size and weight of the camera gear.

A few years back I decided to try something new, I bought a used Olympus E-PM2 with a kit lens. The image quality for such a small body was great and while it wasn't exactly a high end DSLR rival, the camera itself was pretty nice.

Since that time I tried out the E-M5 II and then a few Fuji bodies, while opting to keep a Nikon D600 over the mirrorless cameras. Then I noticed the same patterns in my life... The camera was again staying at home more and more often. So, I dropped the entire Nikon line and opted to go full in with Fuji.

I have no regrets regarding the change, and the camera is almost always with me.

If you compare cameras of similar sensor size the weight difference is not very much, unless you're comparing to a pro camera with a gigantic metal body. If you're taking casual pictures of family you don't need a D5 with a 2.8 zoom, a D3400 with kit lens is virtually weightless.

The size difference btw entry level dlsr and m43 is quite significant,especially when lenses are added to the equation. The difference is even more dramatic when you consider good lenses,because most good canikon lenses are made for fullframe.

@Old Cameras You can use the kit lenses of many of those bodies... I prefer higher quality pictures of family and scenery. Those kit lenses generally suck, with few exceptions.

My kit is currently a Fuji 23 F/2, 35 F/1.4, and 90 F/2. As soon as they come out with a 135 F/2 or 200 F/2 range, I'll probably add that one as well.

Also, the X-T20 is significantly smaller and has less mass in total over the entry level DSLRs... Not to mention those bodies are extremely limited.

As for needing a D500, that's hilarious and you must not have grandkids or kids that try to avoid you getting their picture at every turn. The faster the camera, the more likely you are to catch them off guard, before they can start messing with you. Not saying I need the best body out there, just that it gets a lot easier with them.

stomeruner ...if you compare lenses of the same field of view and that can give the same DOF you will find m43 /APS-c and FF lenses are all the same size ...this is irrefutable ..its a physics thing .well almost m43 tend to be a little bigger. i guess you can only make PCB and AF motors switchers etc so small ..so if you have slower APS-c/ FF lenses thay can be smaller ..obversely you come to a point where you cannot get a FF lens slow enough to be as small/comparable

I get the lightest system that covers ultra wide, small telezoom and portrait lens with good quality (i.e. 75x50cm prints). Ten years ago it was Canon APS DSLR with 10-22mm, 55-250 and 50 1.8. I switched to m43 with Pana 7-14, 45-150 and 42.5. I saved ⅓ weight and improved overall quality.Mirrorless is one reason, smaller sensor is another, taking size/weight into account when designing lenses is essential. Panasonic is really great at this, Olympus is good too (except in Pro line where they focus mostly on quality).

@Davev8 Have you actually seen lenses like the 45 F/1.8 from Olympus? That's insanely small and if you matched that field of view with say a 90mm F/2.8 it would likely be considerably larger.

Also, the Fuji 90 F/2 would be something like a 135 F/2.8 and that again would be considerably larger in Nikon or Canon's lens line up.

Now if you're saying Focal Length for Focal Length, then that's probably true, but nobody who needs an 85mm FOV on a Fuji X will be buying the 90mm Lens, Nope they will opt for the Fuji 56 F/1.2 instead and then that would also be physically smaller than the 85mm Nikon or Canon stuff.

Now one other point I would like to add from my initial post, I actually use the same gear for Studio work, so it's not like I just bought it for family outings. It just helps that they're that much better for the use case.

In the end you probably end up with better pictures simply because it's easier to carry a small(er) camera. And the best pictures are still taken with the camera you're carrying, not the beast that is at home.

negartive287 ...YES i made a list up some time ago comparing lens .and in the comments people would say nothing is smaller than m43 XXXXXX i wuld do resech and come back with a FF lens as small here ..the oly 45mm was one such lens sohttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56662290

NO although the canon 85mm F1.8 was designed 25 years ago when small was not a fad and based on a optical design going back to the 70s it almost the same size as the fuji 56mm F1.2...the canon is sharper when on its intended format(EDIT this was before the fuji 24MP sensor but it probably still holds) and has very fast AF on a 12 year old DSLR ...(my post was deleted on the fuji forum when i proved this ...happy to say that not happen now) canon 85mm F1.8 is 74.68 x 71.77mm 398gfuji 56 is 73.2 mm diameter x 69.7 and 405gso the canon loses by 1 or 2 mm but i think with the advances made in optical design since the 1970s and general lens design since the mid 90s canon could make a 85mm MKii smaller

Second, you had to qualify based on FOV and Similar Depth of field to make your argument work and then gave up a few mm.

If you actually compared the 56 F/1.2 to the 85 F/1.2, the size would not be similar.

As for the sharpness rating, Canon's 85 F/1.8 is rated at 66 lpmm... The Fuji 56 F/1.2 is rated at 70 - 73 lpmm, so yeah, it's not as good or even better and the Fuji was measured on a 16 MP body. Of course, Canon has always had really good glass so, there's no reason to have to remake them every few years.

i would like a link to the LPMM info you have for the fuji 56 and the canon 85 someone may step in here but i think for a certain print size you need 1/2 the LPMM for FF than APS-c for the samo output but i may be wrong if you are correct then to say fuji is a new design and the canon is a 70s optical design then the fuji is not that impressive ...may data both on the same website shows the fuji on 16MP edge perfomance at it best F5.6 not match the canon at F1.8 when on a FF 21mp camera ...maybe not a faer test but at the time i was looking at fuji 16MP was the best but its hard to get a FF less than 21MP

Davev8 Go look at DXO for the 85... Then go to lenstip for the Fuji. DXO won't test the Fuji and lenstip came in closer to 46 LPMM for the Canon 85 because they're using the older 20D, so I was attempting to get like for like.

However, the point I was making is that you're never going to get 100% Equivalence here because you have factors like the number of elements, build quality, generally different formats, and You're not likely to shoot wide open on either brand if you want the sharpest images for any given lens. This means you couldn't make a blanket statement about the entire system and you would have to take it on a lens by lens basis.

Think about it, if I could shoot F/2.8 on the Fuji and still be sharper at 70 LPMM than at any point on the Canon, then equivalence goes out the window. Because you could shoot the same shot at F/4 (And you would have to, in order to get to the 66 LPMM) and still not be as sharp as the Fuji.

unfortunately you cannot compare data across different web sites as the methodology is most probably different also any site that only use one test sample has to be taken with a pinch of salt ...which is most sites .. case of point is DXO the 85 gets a better results than the 100F2..it is known in the canon world and is confirmed on other sites that the 100 is a little better ...at 1 time they had the EF 135F2 behind both the 85 and 100 ..the 135 is better by a good margin ..the best comparison i have seen for the 56 and 85 is on photozone...both will have the same testing methodology.. the fuji is only on 16mp and the 85 on 21 mp FF so unfair advantage to the canon but it is a FF lens.. as can be seen the canon is much more evan across the frame than the fuji evan at F5.6 it is not as good as the 85 at F1.8 at the edge ..also the fuji has twice the chromatic aberration than the canon also it can be seen the Bokeh fringing is better on the canon as well continued

both the better chromatic aberration and Bokeh fringing will give the canon a better perceived sharpness if nothing else ...however if the 85 was on an a APS-c body the fuji may be better

.EDIT just looked at the 85 on a 15MP APS-c body(photozone ) and the canon matches the fuji ...also the 15MP 50D has an overly strong AA filter and according to DXO 12MP Nikon bodies of the day get a better sharpness rating than the 15MP 50D both with the same 3ed party macro lens

..they are both splendid lenses.... i dont have the 85 i have the 100F2 i pay just less than £200 GBP for it and as fussy is i am with edge sharpness i have no problem with F2 on the 100 and looking how flat the chart across all the F stops with the 85 at F1.8 looks sharp too

I bought recently Nikon D500, Fujifilm X-T2, Olympus E-M1II, Panasonic GH5Canon cameras are sleeping in the shadow of Nikon (beside the better Live-View-focussing) - Eos 5DIV, 1DXII, 77D, M5, M6 were heavy disappointments for me.I was traveling around Europe for the past weeks with all these cameras.Panasonic GH5, is not a real good step for photography, I don't like the viewfinder at all.Olympus E-M1II - makes 2 or more problems a day - reliability is missing for me.Fuji X-T2 has bad energy power for a hole day, I need 2 extra accu's or more.Nikon D500 is mostly fun - but if you are used to noiseless, direct exposure-control on mirrorless-cameras - you will pray for a Nikon without mirror and with aps-c sensor - or even better, a fusion of Nikon and Fuji!

I even used my IPhone 7+ a bit - but it is far away from a real photographers tool, sometimes good for landscapes, but without macro or tele, without faster AF it is just click-clack fast food.

Yes I dit cary tele and wide-angle lenses for each system.This is easy in a camper.I am a tele-man, I use 400-600 mm mostly, wide-angle mostly when I am back to the wall or small creatures let me come close.

No, Sony doesn't fulfill my needs. I had a A6000, autofocus is much worse and no good tele-lenses. 7RII seems the right course but still 2 years behind - a good sensor alone makes no better pictures.

Not sure what to respond if you say the A6000 AF was worse... It is one of the best on the market and certainly better than the A7Rii. I'm not saying that you are using your camera(s) completely wrong, but there may be room for improvement in skill.

A6000 AF is neither one of the best AF in the market nor very consistent, nor is there a real tele-lens to proof it could be as good and as precise as Fujifilm, X-T2 AF with 2.8/50-140 - 5.6/100-400 - 1.2/56 -nor the Panasonic GH5 with Leica 12-60 mm or Leica 100-400 mm or 1.2/42.5nor Olympus E-M1II with 12-100 mm or 300 mm,even try Leica SL...... no need to go on.Believe in Sony, if you like, but advertisement-speak is one thing - tele-autofocus in practical is a complete other.And if I want sharp pictures with a wide angle at f:5.6, I could use nearly every camera on the market - that will proof not really much - try to shoot with full aperture - then Sony AF looses.

Try to get birds in flight or Tigers in the wild in focus with f.2.8 - then we talk about AF and Sony.

You listed a slew of different use cases and systems, I'm not saying that the A6000 will solve every single one of them. That includes the Fuji system with a single supertele. You also listed live view AF and battery life as important ideas, and packing light as not. Thus, I listed a fairly cheap camera with live-view autofocus that everybody but you seems to praise heavily, and one that can be powered almost indefinitely if carrying a USB power bank.

there is no need to praise any single camera - what counts is, how easy and perfect I can get sharp and remarkable pictures and how much it satisfy's me to turn my visions into pictures.I can do good pictures with a A6000 - but it makes a lot more problems then any other new camera in the range - not even to speak about the zoom-lenses.All people that have not the opportunity to try and work and teach with different camera system's will not now about bad and good.So let Sony and fans pray for only one good camera body which is fast and without big flaws - i would enjoy that too.

and I know from every day use, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Leica are not perfect also - but AF in particular works with most lenses dead on subject in most situations. If you do thousand of pictures a week, the AF from Sony is still not what I need.

I mean, you do you man, and what works for you is what you should use. It's just that I've never met anybody who takes so many photos who has so many serious issues with gear, Sony or otherwise. And if you use so many systems, and can't live with their issues, I really do think you should reevaluate your shooting style.

I always take what fit's for the light, the situation and the subject.It was always strange to me, that people chain them selfs on names or gear from only one manufacture.I worked a long time with Minolta and I tried every new, better Sony camera since then and I know who to handle them.It doesn't matter, what is written on the camera or what people think what their camera can do.So I have no serious issues - it just has to fit on subject and light, and I take what fit's best for me.I always optimize my shooting - I can't press the subjects into form, so I always have to and my gear too.

So, think about how this could potentially change the entire landscape of photography for generations to come.

Right now the only companies committed to the technology are Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony... With Nikon mostly abandoning their failed entry level model, and Canon half heartedly releasing bodies that are good, but not so good that they will affect their cash cow.

It's looking more and more like the new big 3 will be Fuji, Sony, and M4/3 (Olympus and Panasonic). The only area that needs improving right now, deal with the AF capabilities of many of the mirrorless brands.

First, Canon is already selling a large number of mirrorless cameras. It hasn't sunk in around here much, but they are moving a lot of units of their limited M-series lineup in Asia. Whether they are making a profit on them is a different question, but they will soon enough. They always do.

Second, if you had taken a snapshot of the camera business in 1980, when the AF point-and-shoot was beginning its explosive rise, you'd have predicted that Konica and Fuji would be the camera giants of the future.

And if you had taken a snapshot of the camera business in 1999, when digital cameras were in the early stages of their explosive rise, you'd have predicted that Sony and Olympus would be the camera giants of the future.

In other words, being early into a market doesn't guarantee long-term success in it, and being late-ish doesn't guarantee failure. Being really late is a bad idea, but we're not there yet in mirrorless.

Well canon from a 2 year YoY has increased it's marketshare around 3-4% and maintained around a 14% profit ratio - which is still highest in industry from what we can actually tell.

it's hard to say they need to move quicker, alot of their R&D was obviously surrounding dual pixel sensors getting "good" enough, and while they are close, they still aren't quite there yet.

20 million AF sensors takes some processing power you'd think.

also their M5 and M6 that dont' get much love, are probably some of the more compact ergonomic friendly mirrorless out there. Lenses? MIA, however canon has shown that it could fix that in a big hurry if they feel the need. just have to check to see how many EF lenses came out at the start, and how fast.

Nikon is a little hard to figure out, the liveview / potential for mirrorless isn't there in their DSLR's as it is for canon and we haven't seen the progression. Breaking from the F mount just doesn't seem in Nikon's DNA.

If Canon wins the market due to DPAF that would be fine. But what everybody seems to be hinting at, and more disturbingly, almost hoping for, is that Canon wins the market through their name recognition alone. And that would just be terrible.

IMO, DPAF was developed for future mirrorless and better video AF. when you consider how much heavy lifting canon had to do to get there, you kind of realize why it took so damned long though. they had to upgrade their sensor fabs, develop far faster DIGIC's,etc to process 20 million or so AF points.

and in the meantime, they had to come up with STM, hybrid AF systems to tide them over until DPAF was ready for prime time.

Canon (and nikon's) name and marketing carry a ton of clout - but also their support services, ecosystem, etc as well.

Also I think enthusiasts just naval gaze too much. Even the M which was resoundingly trashed (rightfully) by enthusiasts was an amazing photographic tool to give to someone that never used an ILC before.

the ergonomics of the M5 and M6 are top notch. what other APS-C or larger MILC the size of an M6 has tri navigational wheels? or the M5 with four?

@Photouniverse Yeah okay, so people are just going to stop using the systems they've grown to love, because Nikon is now a player in the market?

The Mirrorless Body is only half the issue that Nikon would have to address.

With Olympus and Sony, Nikon would need to develop their IBIS to compete.

With Fuji, the Nikon Glass would have to be as good and as cheap as the Fuji lenses for a whole lot less than Nikon charges right now.

Nikon instead of trying to enter Mirrorless in a serious way, decided to finally fix their AF Fine tuning and release more DSLR bodies. They have no interest in Mirrorless and they will only jump when they're forced.

Their sensors are seen as still too far behind and they even lag the Fuji APS-C sensors for DR / NR. They haven't solved the IBIS solution, so that means systems where their sensors are close enough, will still beat the Canon system.

I would have gladly checked out the Canon if their camera had IBIS or at least a good sensor in the body.

rrcad, You paint the picture as if Canon has been doing the most work and deserve success, which holds water until you see the efforts put in by other makers. I'll put forth Sony E as my example, but Fuji X and M43 have put forth equally amazing forces of work in their own ways.

While Canon was developing DPAF, Sony have developed OSPDAF which has evolved from the kinda nice featureset on the likes of the Nex 6 to DLSR rivaling juggernauts in the shape of the A9 and A6300. Meanwhile, they have created their own system, marketing to both the trendy traditional audience of mirrorless as well as the enthusiast/(semi)pro audience. To this end they have also developed Direct drive SSM, normal stepper motor lenses, as well as the recent dual drive systems designed around the new hybrid autofocus systems that combine the best parts of CDAF and PDAF. They have then churned out lenses at an alarming pace, creating a competent lineup in the Full Frame in little more than 3 years. And maybe most impressively, they have converted the vague FF potential of E mount into a very real and very competent FF IBIS mount system.

When you consider the big picture like this, I find it frankly a bit insulting to say that Canon has been doing some heavy lifting.

First, I think you're over-valuing one aspect of business success, as if innovation was the only thing that matters. Why shouldn't brand equity count? How do you think Canon and Nikon acquired theirs? Both companies have spent decades building high-quality (and often very innovative) products and gaining customer trust and goodwill. (With plenty of ups and downs along the way, of course.) Should that not be worth something? Shouldn't companies be rewarded for building it? I'm pretty certain that most company executives would say that building excellent brand equity is both harder than short-term innovation, and more valuable once you have it.

Secondly, you're underestimating Canon's innovation history by a lot (they are , for example, perennially among the top 3 or 4 companies globally in patents issued). Mirrorless ILC camera construction is not the only laudable innovation in cameras and optics.

Of course innovation isn't everything, but as a user of cameras and a fan of the technology, you'd hope it means at least something. Because otherwise no other company should ever bother trying. And if that's not depressing to you then I don't know what to say

Don't hold me to this, because I could be dead wrong, but if what I'm thinking is true, then I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

This being said, in the recent past I have either bought or acquired a Nikon D7100 with a broken on/off switch; a Pentax K-3; a Nikon D5100; an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark I; a Sony NEX-7; a Sony RX100 Mark I; a Panasonic FZ1000; and the Leica version of the Panasonic LX100. The NEX-7 and the RX100 didn't stay long. I sold them.

I use the K-3 and the LX100/Leica D-Lux almost exclusively, and the FZ1000 every now and then. The E-M5 is greatly admired, like a shelf trophy, but seldom used.

There is a clear pattern of purposeless inconsistency here, so I guess everything's fine.

I think its fair to say, only mirrorless bodies released in the last 24 months have really shown the development. The NEX-7 era of mirrorless weren't really competitive against the DSLR offerings. However of you look at the A7R2, A9, GH5, OM-D M1ii, XT-2 and the top middle end then look at the G7, X-T20, A6300 at the bottom end and they really do compete strongly against the DSLR offerings on price and performance. In my view the mirrorless offerings offer better 'bang for buck' across the entire spectrum.

@gphome The E-M5 was the start of the modern mirrorless push... That camera was first mirrorless body that made people look twice at the system and the first mirrorless to win camera of the year. I loved just about everything about that little body.

People oftent fail to realize that a decision to buy a camera with interchangeable lenses is a decision to buy into a lens system. Until lens sytems for mirrorless bodies can approach the breadth and quality of DLSR systems, this is all sound and fury that signifies nothing. Sony might get there in a decade, but until then...

If you got a dslr within the past 5yrs there's really no reason to upgrade or buy another. Nothing much has improved to making your life easier. Still need to micro adjust lenses ✔️ , Still need to Move focus points around or focus and recompose for portraits ✔️, shooting in live view still sucks ✔️, would still rather use your iPhone for videos ✔️, still loud and clunky ✔️, 100% viewfinder is for the rich only ✔️, still too heavy/big so it's collecting dust on the shelf ✔️. 😊

Ehh, I'm all about mirrorless but there's a free bullet points there which DSLR *have addressed* in the last 2-3 years. Canon's Dual Pixel models seem more than fine in live view now and it's probably what I'd opt for if I wanted a DSLR (I don't)... Nikon also introduced automatic micro adjustment by using live view with the D500 IIRC.

Actually, my X-Pro1 is quiet a lot louder than my K-5 (granted, they are prehistory,.) And as far as dimensions concerned, the X-Pro is only smaller by a margin. DSLR's still have better battery life, better AF (my K-5 is even faster than the X-pro.), shorter black out during exposure, etc.I don't do video, so I don't care for that...

OP didn't say anything about mirror-less being better than DSLRs, people. No need for fanboys to jump on him.

The only thing he said, is that DSLRs practically reached their peak and there are only minimal improvements in the last 5 years.This can NOT motivate people to buy new DSLRs, hence the DSLR market is declining.Five - ten years ago, you would want the latest DSLR to get a NOTICEABLE bump in ISO, DR and AF speed, but that's no longer the case.

@Everlast: Thats clear and this is not why I commented. Many points itself are not true or very subjective (some are valid, of course, like micro adjustment), but stated as facts. "Five - ten years ago, you would want the latest DSLR to get a NOTICEABLE bump in ISO, DR [...], but that's no longer the case." True for mirrorless, too. Sensors reach the limit dictated by shot noise (see D5 high ISO performance). As MILCs and DSLRs are both digital and use similar sensors (DSLR sensors are usually cooler), a bump in ISO and DR will not become true for both. So internal RAW processing will be improved, in my opinion. I believe MILCs to be the future, too, by the way.

We're not talking about physical geography here, but about markets. Japan is the home market, and therefore has a special significance for the Japanese camera makers. That's why CIPA treats it as a separate market.

Russia and Turkey are included in the European market, even though both countries are partly Asian.Africa and Oceania (and probably the Middle East) are lumped together as 'Other', which doesn't reflect physical or political geography, either.

If you look at their population and the number of MILC cameras "shipped to Japan" since 2012, then the Japanese are five times more likely to purchase a MILC camera than the Europeans are, ten times more likely than people from North or South America, and twenty times more likely than other Asians.

This cannot be a random coincidence. Japanese consumers seem to like MILC cameras more than anyone else does.

No one claims that Japan is a different continent. As I said, CIPA aren't interested in continents, but in camera markets, and the Japanese market is deemed important enough to be treated separately from the rest of Asia.I don't see a problem here, except perhaps that they should have used the label 'Asia excluding Japan' to avoid any confusion.

This growing mirrorless trend is especially good news for vampires. There are probably more pre-orders for the a9 coming out of Transylvania than anywhere else, no doubt. A mirrorless camera with exceptional low-light performance is certain to have broad appeal in that market. Now, if only worldwide garlic sales would diminish.

@Negative: Not directly. Increase in sales ($) is not the same as increase in unit sales. The market is shrinking and Sony overall has declining unit sales numbers, but tries to get their revenue by selling higher priced gear, which they seem to succeed in (most manufacturers try that). This is reflected in their increase in sales ($). This is irrespective of the fact that DSLRs loose volume, being replaced by MILCs or newer cameras. However, personal and read anecdotes don't help and are misleading. In terms of market share Sony is still around 14-16%, they didn't manage to make a big impact here. Canon on the other hand increased share to 48% overall. Over the year, there are certain times when more cameras are sold, or when newly introduced models generate interest and sales, i.e local maxima and minima. Short term statistics isn't able to get rid of these local extrema. Yearly numbers are the better metric in my opinion. Thom's data shows MILCs didn't reach their overall maximum...

... a few years ago yet. But you can see they tend to increase slightly. Maybe they reach/surpass their historical best by a margin next year in April. All this doesn't mean that you aren't right in one aspect: that MILCs will more and more replace DSLR sales.

Thom's analysis is a better indicator of the future than short-term statistics. Mirrorless will largely replace DSLRs, but mostly because DSLR sales are declining, not because there is significant long-term growth in MILC sales.

Quite possibly, but Canon still sell about twice the number of DSLRs that everyone else put together sells mirrorless, and makes a lot of money doing it, so I can't see it happening more than gradually. (It will happen to some degree, as mirrorless are cheaper to make and that isn't completely getting passed on to the customer, so margins would be good for the high-volume producers like Canon, and Nikon when they have a product.)As an aside people keep saying the Compact Camera market has died, it's certainly massively contracted but the market is still about $1.5B so worth having a share of (the whole mirrorless market is $900M, BTW DSLR is $2.4B and basically Canon and Nikon).Oh and marshwader, thanks for that, enjoyed it!

I wonder what the key mirrorless innovations are, since it's basically a compact camera with an interchangeable lens, technology-wise? Canon have the best AF system for mirrorless, especially for video. The Nikon 1 also had amazing AF, although the technology doesn't seem to have made it into their DSLRs for LIve-View for some reason (lenses maybe).There is some nice technology in the sensors, but most isn't mirrorless-specific.I'm really asking BTW.

Latest in-depth reviews

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.